I had a good feeling first. I love irony and self mockery...but this is...for real I think...so I can't vote for it.

why the fuck is this #1?

title, tags and discourse is oozing with latent, liberal racism.
if race had nothing to do with this the title and tags would be different.

4chan making a meme and mockery out of this is funny, mostly because 4chan doesn't pretend it's having an intelligent conversation.

You know what? Fuck you and your point of view. Relax, I'm going to make a point. By saying something so rude, and stupid. I understand your point more than most.

Right. In the US you can say what you damn well please so long as they are not "fighting words". Directly calling someone out.

Now, here is where it is different: Fuck you and your point of view. That is an expression of my distaste for your position on the matter at hand. Had I said, Fuck You! Then you can construe that as fighting words. That is not, under the law correct free speech. You must put context with the situation.

However, context for saying Fuck You may be given by the situation at hand. If I were being wrongly accused of some wrong doing, and so frustrated that I yelled out "Fuck Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!" then given the situation it can be construed as expression of your stressful state, and in Philadelphia is protected free speech.

So what he showed in the video, was by United States standards, freedom of speech and expression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck#Freedom_of_expression

Just because it offends someone does not make it illegal free speech, and in fact it would be censorship to say so. Iran's leader came here and spoke his mind, but we did not silence him, and he isn't even a US citizen!

>> ^Mysling:
To me, there is a very significant difference between a person making use of his or her freedom of speech, and intentionally inflaming and entire people and hiding behind it. Geert Wilders isn't on trial because of what he said, but because he showed incredibly poor judgement in how he chose to say it.
While what he said may be "true", there are definately ways to say it that are both rational, well thought out and based on valid arguments. But when he instead chooses to make a movie based mainly on disgusting images and emotional porn, you have to wonder whether he truely wanted to tell the "truth", or simply wanted to poke at the bees nest to create publicity. If so, he has made a mockery of the freedom of speech he is touting to his defense.

To me, there is a very significant difference between a person making use of his or her freedom of speech, and intentionally inflaming and entire people and hiding behind it. Geert Wilders isn't on trial because of what he said, but because he showed incredibly poor judgement in how he chose to say it.

While what he said may be "true", there are definately ways to say it that are both rational, well thought out and based on valid arguments. But when he instead chooses to make a movie based mainly on disgusting images and emotional porn, you have to wonder whether he truely wanted to tell the "truth", or simply wanted to poke at the bees nest to create publicity. If so, he has made a mockery of the freedom of speech he is touting to his defense.

I find the way Yoo snickers about it, and makes a mockery of the whole discussion absolutely repulsive. On the other hand I can't bring to hold him to account for ultimately the executive decisions that he wasn't implicitly responsible for making, even if his legal advice enabled it.

First of all, I thought the video was pretty boring. But I wanted to ask you about your comment. Pretty much all the religions have beliefs about the nature of the universe that are mutually exclusive. At most, only one of them could be right. Furthermore, there is only one universal truth. I've certainly never seen evidence of any religion ever. Picking one at random does seem rather foolish, doesn't it? Choosing the religion of my parents or of my surroundings or my upbringing is pretty much the same as picking one at random isn't it? I mean, it has the same probability of being wrong, and I still wouldn't have seen any evidence. If someone fools himself into thinking a religion is true, just because he was brought up in it, wouldn't he be a fool? If someone devotes his entire life to servicing one religion, but then spends an eternity in another religion's hell, wouldn't he be an extreme fool?

I also disagree with the equating of religious criticism with racial criticism. I understand this is how most people think, but I have no idea why. Of course it's terrible to criticize anyone for something they've inherited from birth and can't change. That makes sense. But I can mock people that think Elvis is still alive, right? I can mock birthers and 911 truthers, right? I can even mock Scientologists and new-age hippies, right? What's so special about major religions? I honestly think that a little bit of internet mockery is a good thing. Maybe it'll cause some people to lighten up a little bit, or maybe even think about their religion enough to defend it.

>> ^crillep:

He talked about Christianity as a single entity for the whole video, even refering to himself as "we Christians". He mentions that every other type of Christianity is fake, yes. But in doing that he only implies that every Christian is a fool for choosing their own particular faith over many others. I don't see how it can be understood any other way.
I'm neither religious nor an atheist, but I frequent the sift. And I must say this is just another pathetic rant from atheism. The way I was brought up, mocking someones faith in this manner is just as wrong as mocking their skin color. I think church and state should be seperated, and I admire the voices for that cause. But I also think that people should be allowed to believe whatever the hell they want without being ridiculed.

I upvoted...for the 2010 part. >> ^quantumushroom:

SRSLY....2010 can't get here fast enough.


Republicans are making a mockery of what was until recently a parody of themselves.

hideously painful, yet perfect for further mockery of the religious.

I understand the uproar over potentially making a mockery of the White House's security, but people need to get a grip.

Crashing a closed ceremony is an exciting sport to some people. To crash a White House party is the holy grail of party crashers.

Not to mention the fact that they were apparently screened for weapons anyway and were obviously mingling well with politicians.

So fix the security gap, make sure everyone realizes the significance of their robotic duties, and stop acting like these people should be sent to prison when they didn't pose a risk at all to anybody.

That's a great tune, and a pretty good effort on the fan vid. 4 votes is a mockery!

he's making a mockery i think, it's parody cleverly done.

Nah, it's really a culture shock issue. It's the sudden shift from juvenile college to a diverse professional environment. It's a shift from "yeah, let's make fun of everyone who thinks differently than we do," to an environment of mutual and almost universal respect, and to a realization that the thought that there is a "we" (as in "we normal people") group at all is a relatively shallow and poorly reasoned concept. People think "wtf?" because such mockery can be considered ignorance, if not bigotry here especially due to the ethnic origins of many of the belief systems. The same goes for lifestyles such as customs, traditions, and such things as sexual preference. Even "young earthers" are given their fair shake in a discussion if they have something to back it up or some perspective to give that is at least interesting if anything. It's not really being "PC" so much as it is being friendly and respectful. It's a very pleasant place to work in that respect.

Hehe, pwnd.
I guess one of the advantages of working at a place that is as extremely diverse as it is here is the total lack of any form of mockery. We've got people from just about every side of every conflict, every nationality, and every religion or lack thereof. It generally makes mockery of a religion just look childish and sad. When people hear it, they generally make a "wtf?" face and shake their heads and make a mental note. First years tend to make that mistake... once. The only people that still catch flack are "young-earthers" and I don't know any of them here.

Barney Frank, and Al Franklin, seem to be two gentleman that cut the B.S. and go straight to the point of the issues.

Defination of the word 'Frank'

-adjective
1. direct and unreserved in speech; straightforward; sincere
2. without inhibition or subterfuge; direct; undisguised.
3. Archaic. liberal or generous.

Synonyms:
Unrestrained, free, bold, uninhibited. Frank, candid, open, outspoken imply a freedom and boldness in speaking. Frank is applied to one unreserved in expressing the truth and to one's real opinions and sentiments.

Antonyms:
restrained.

(source: Dictionary.com)

-------

Should we be at all surprised by the way these two behave and talk, on subjects of American politics? Should *THIS* be the sort of stuff, we want to see politicans do and behave, instead of the mockery of human dignity we see from Rommey, Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity?

>> ^EmptyFriend:
so is it fixed or what? i went to amazon and searched for "origin of species" and the first result is still the ray comfort version is still the #1 result, but it has a 1 star rating, and shows that 20/21 reviews for it were all 1 star.
seems fixed.


The problem is only partially fixed. They have now assigned the right reviews to the right books, but one major problem remains, that when you are searching for "origin of species" the first result is this fake creationist version, deceivingly and mockingly titled "150th Anniversary Edition", the same as the real version with the Julian Huxley introduction. Even worse, the "Huxley version" is completely left off the results page!

Any honestly interested person wanting to familiarize themselves with Darwins masterpiece should not get this mockery of a book as their first result. It should be renamed "Unofficial Creationist Retard Edition", and be shuffled to the bottom of the deck.